(...)Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle.(...)

Where's the fail exactly?

I don't see any but the usage of "principle" =D

He explained his principle to the principal.

I have no idea why there's even a question about this. Under the circumstances telling Ralf to hold station was a no-brainer. If Jordan hadn't worked that out on his own then who cares if it took the guy who would benefit to state the obvious?

We have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equality. (Been dying to use this fantastic phrase since that monstrous tory MP did so yesterday in relation to gay marriage.)

I'd imagine the opposite to be honest. You have a fast catching 3rd place car. Would you let the slow first car remain there, bunching them up, only for the 3rd car to catch up and/or try to overtake?

Granted it didn't happen in the end, but logic would dictate releasing the fast car (so you have a chance to win) and try to get the slowest of the cars to retain it's position.

To be honest I don't remember what was going on behind them now. Under the circumstances you describe I'd agree with you. I should have qualified what I said with 'if there's no threat from other cars'.

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

(...)Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle.(...)

Where's the fail exactly?

I don't see any but the usage of "principle" =D

He explained his principle to the principal.

I have no idea why there's even a question about this. Under the circumstances telling Ralf to hold station was a no-brainer. If Jordan hadn't worked that out on his own then who cares if it took the guy who would benefit to state the obvious?

We have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equality. (Been dying to use this fantastic phrase since that monstrous tory MP did so yesterday in relation to gay marriage.)

I'd imagine the opposite to be honest. You have a fast catching 3rd place car. Would you let the slow first car remain there, bunching them up, only for the 3rd car to catch up and/or try to overtake?

Granted it didn't happen in the end, but logic would dictate releasing the fast car (so you have a chance to win) and try to get the slowest of the cars to retain it's position.

To be honest I don't remember what was going on behind them now. Under the circumstances you describe I'd agree with you. I should have qualified what I said with 'if there's no threat from other cars'.

In hindsight it worked out, but at the time of the order Alesi was catching fast. 10 laps before the end he was less than 5 seconds behind Hill. Not Ralph, but Hill. And closing. He let it go at the end and finished 7 secs behind, but for at least the last 10 laps he was right there with them, being faster actually.

(...)Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle.(...)

Where's the fail exactly?

I don't see any but the usage of "principle" =D

SchumieRules wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Again, I fail ( ) to see where the fail, in the 1998 Francorchamps race result, is supposed to be found. Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle. Bearing in mind Schumacher's position (which may well have been much more complicated than we realise), Jordan's order can be understood. Having said that, if I were Schumacher (and obviously in that case in the know concerning "my" position), I would have raced Hill.

Where's the fail exactly?

If you read from the beginning you'd see that I was referring to the fact that the race finished with 6 cars, following from the previous conversation about winning/getting points in a race with so few cars left.

I did read from the beginning, but I don't see what Hill had to be ashamed of. He performed well all race long, including qualifying and both race starts. That Schumacher rammed a backmarker wasn't Hill's fault; if "fail" there was that day, that's where to look.

As for Alesi; just like Ralf he was catching initially. But catching is one thing; passing another. In fact, Hill's message to Jordan made sure no speed was lost because of 2 cars fighting one another.

I never said he should feel ashamed, so don't put words there please.

He was losing 5 secs to his team mate and lost 4 places in the first start. Is that a good performance? He also had a trip to the grass.

Aaah, fudge this, I don't care, it's in the past

I really don't know why the fact that Hill lost 4 places at the first start should be so important, especially because you conveniently forget to mention that he shot into 1st place at the second start, with all the front runners still in the race. If anyone profited, it was Ralf, when DC and Mika tangled at La Source.

A trip to the grass? On a soaking wet track? They should have taken away his super licence at the spot!

_________________DaymanFighter of the NightmanChampion of the sunYou’re a master of karate and friendship…for everyone!

(...)Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle.(...)

Where's the fail exactly?

I don't see any but the usage of "principle" =D

SchumieRules wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Again, I fail ( ) to see where the fail, in the 1998 Francorchamps race result, is supposed to be found. Hill was slower than Ralf Schumacher for an important part of the race, and he announced that he would be fighting Schumacher for the win. That's what he told his team principle. Bearing in mind Schumacher's position (which may well have been much more complicated than we realise), Jordan's order can be understood. Having said that, if I were Schumacher (and obviously in that case in the know concerning "my" position), I would have raced Hill.

Where's the fail exactly?

If you read from the beginning you'd see that I was referring to the fact that the race finished with 6 cars, following from the previous conversation about winning/getting points in a race with so few cars left.

I did read from the beginning, but I don't see what Hill had to be ashamed of. He performed well all race long, including qualifying and both race starts. That Schumacher rammed a backmarker wasn't Hill's fault; if "fail" there was that day, that's where to look.

As for Alesi; just like Ralf he was catching initially. But catching is one thing; passing another. In fact, Hill's message to Jordan made sure no speed was lost because of 2 cars fighting one another.

I never said he should feel ashamed, so don't put words there please.

He was losing 5 secs to his team mate and lost 4 places in the first start. Is that a good performance? He also had a trip to the grass.

Aaah, fudge this, I don't care, it's in the past

I really don't know why the fact that Hill lost 4 places at the first start should be so important, especially because you conveniently forget to mention that he shot into 1st place at the second start, with all the front runners still in the race. If anyone profited, it was Ralf, when DC and Mika tangled at La Source.

A trip to the grass? On a soaking wet track? They should have taken away his super licence at the spot!

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Or do you take everything out of context?

I was replying to the bold part. Fiki stated that he had performed well all race long, I had a different opinion. He didn't get two perfect starts and he didn't drive well all race long. That's what I was talking about. Is this clear? Can I have this opinion, if it is ok with you?

Ralf benefitted in the race, just as Damon benefitted in the race (from pitting in the SC period, securing his position). And?

Calling his pit call a "fail" and then defending your statement by saying Hill should have yielded to Ralf because he lost 4 places at the first start and went to the grass once is quite a fail in itself, especially coming from someone with a nickname like yours.

_________________DaymanFighter of the NightmanChampion of the sunYou’re a master of karate and friendship…for everyone!

Calling his pit call a "fail" and then defending your statement by saying Hill should have yielded to Ralf because he lost 4 places at the first start and went to the grass once is quite a fail in itself, especially coming from someone with a nickname like yours.

Dear god, show me please where did I call his pit call a fail. Pray tell. Please quote the exact post that I mentioned that Hill's pit call was a fail. I won't be holding my breath if you don't mind.

Now I told you before, but as you seem a bit... lets say confused, I'll tell you again; the 4 places and the grass trip was a reply to Fiki when he said he had performed well in the whole race, not that he should have yielded his position to Ralf because of that. Clear? Want me to draw a picture maybe?

My nickname refers to Michael and not Ralf. I never liked Ralf to be honest, but I suppose you know better...

Who could forget, though I almost did, Schumacher's intentional collisions into title rivals in 1994 and 1997 and the Monaco parking incident in 2006. Big fails as those put a major dent on his reputation.

Calling his pit call a "fail" and then defending your statement by saying Hill should have yielded to Ralf because he lost 4 places at the first start and went to the grass once is quite a fail in itself, especially coming from someone with a nickname like yours.

Dear god, show me please where did I call his pit call a fail. Pray tell. Please quote the exact post that I mentioned that Hill's pit call was a fail. I won't be holding my breath if you don't mind.

Now I told you before, but as you seem a bit... lets say confused, I'll tell you again; the 4 places and the grass trip was a reply to Fiki when he said he had performed well in the whole race, not that he should have yielded his position to Ralf because of that. Clear? Want me to draw a picture maybe?

My nickname refers to Michael and not Ralf. I never liked Ralf to be honest, but I suppose you know better...

You're right, you never called it a fail, I apologize for that.

You comment about losing places at the start and making a trip through the grass wasn't directed to Fiki, though. you replied to SilverstoneRegular when he said that the car was where it was (at the GP) because of Hill's development work.

I know your nickname refers to Michael. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

Actu

_________________DaymanFighter of the NightmanChampion of the sunYou’re a master of karate and friendship…for everyone!

Who could forget, though I almost did, Schumacher's intentional collisions into title rivals in 1994 and 1997 and the Monaco parking incident in 2006. Big fails as those put a major dent on his reputation.

As for Schumacher, I'd also add ignoring a stop-and-go penalty, then ignoring a black flag, then getting banned for a few races.

Who could forget, though I almost did, Schumacher's intentional collisions into title rivals in 1994 and 1997 and the Monaco parking incident in 2006. Big fails as those put a major dent on his reputation.

As for Schumacher, I'd also add ignoring a stop-and-go penalty, then ignoring a black flag, then getting banned for a few races.

Would you believe I actually understand what he did there much better, than what he did in the final part of the race the Hungaroring in 2006? Getting it completely wrong and going against the better judgement of the pit crews...

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Calling his pit call a "fail" and then defending your statement by saying Hill should have yielded to Ralf because he lost 4 places at the first start and went to the grass once is quite a fail in itself, especially coming from someone with a nickname like yours.

Dear god, show me please where did I call his pit call a fail. Pray tell. Please quote the exact post that I mentioned that Hill's pit call was a fail. I won't be holding my breath if you don't mind.

Now I told you before, but as you seem a bit... lets say confused, I'll tell you again; the 4 places and the grass trip was a reply to Fiki when he said he had performed well in the whole race, not that he should have yielded his position to Ralf because of that. Clear? Want me to draw a picture maybe?

My nickname refers to Michael and not Ralf. I never liked Ralf to be honest, but I suppose you know better...

You're right, you never called it a fail, I apologize for that.

You comment about losing places at the start and making a trip through the grass wasn't directed to Fiki, though. you replied to SilverstoneRegular when he said that the car was where it was (at the GP) because of Hill's development work.

I know your nickname refers to Michael. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

Actu

Appreciated mate.

And I see what you mean about my comment. However, my comment to SilverstoneRegular was similarly not referring to Hill yielding his position because he hadn't been faultless, as you suggested above. SilverstoneRegular suggested that the car got there because of Hill's development; I was merely pointing that Hill didn't have a perfect race, his position of leading the race was partly (a very big part actually) because of a race that was full of incidents. The development of the car is a completely different thing.

Overall Hill's Jordan was probably good enough to challenge for podium that day, but under normal circumstances I doubt he would have. Without the first accident that wiped out half the field, he already had dropped to 6th by the first corner. He was quite lucky to win that race, as the day unfolded.

Can you elaborate on my nickname? What does Hill yielding his position have to do with Michael?

Who could forget, though I almost did, Schumacher's intentional collisions into title rivals in 1994 and 1997 and the Monaco parking incident in 2006. Big fails as those put a major dent on his reputation.

As for Schumacher, I'd also add ignoring a stop-and-go penalty, then ignoring a black flag, then getting banned for a few races.

Would you believe I actually understand what he did there much better, than what he did in the final part of the race the Hungaroring in 2006? Getting it completely wrong and going against the better judgement of the pit crews...

Can you elaborate on my nickname? What does Hill yielding his position have to do with Michael?

Team orders. You saw a problem with Hill supposedly calling for team orders (although I think he just plain told EJ he would fight for position) when MS (your nickname) profited from blatant team orderrs multiple times.

_________________DaymanFighter of the NightmanChampion of the sunYou’re a master of karate and friendship…for everyone!

Can you elaborate on my nickname? What does Hill yielding his position have to do with Michael?

Team orders. You saw a problem with Hill supposedly calling for team orders (although I think he just plain told EJ he would fight for position) when MS (your nickname) profited from blatant team orderrs multiple times.

I don't remember Schumacher, Hakkinen or many others ever calling for team orders. That's the difference

Well, I never heard MS say it, but I heard todt say it. And besides, Ferrari isn't Jordan, a team on the verge of their 1st win.

Can't have one rule for one and not the others. Hill's last win was a result of team orders, Ralf was faster but Hill threatened Jordan to hold him off. Simple as that.

You can't say 'as simple as that' about a prediction. Hill could have been holding something in reserve, Ralf could have gone off trying to make the move, they could have lost so much time tangling that neither of them won. Hill may have won partly as a result of team orders (he did a little more in that race than make a radio call), or he may have won regardless.

And do we actually know what Hill said? (Honest question, I don't know if there's a radio clip.)

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

Well, I never heard MS say it, but I heard todt say it. And besides, Ferrari isn't Jordan, a team on the verge of their 1st win.

Can't have one rule for one and not the others. Hill's last win was a result of team orders, Ralf was faster but Hill threatened Jordan to hold him off. Simple as that.

You can't say 'as simple as that' about a prediction. Hill could have been holding something in reserve, Ralf could have gone off trying to make the move, they could have lost so much time tangling that neither of them won. Hill may have won partly as a result of team orders (he did a little more in that race than make a radio call), or he may have won regardless.

And do we actually know what Hill said? (Honest question, I don't know if there's a radio clip.)

Well, I never heard MS say it, but I heard todt say it. And besides, Ferrari isn't Jordan, a team on the verge of their 1st win.

Can't have one rule for one and not the others. Hill's last win was a result of team orders, Ralf was faster but Hill threatened Jordan to hold him off. Simple as that.

You can't say 'as simple as that' about a prediction. Hill could have been holding something in reserve, Ralf could have gone off trying to make the move, they could have lost so much time tangling that neither of them won. Hill may have won partly as a result of team orders (he did a little more in that race than make a radio call), or he may have won regardless.

And do we actually know what Hill said? (Honest question, I don't know if there's a radio clip.)

The times suggested Ralf was able to go much quicker at that point of the race. If he had been allowed to attack Hill then he probably would have passed him but Hill told Jordan if that happened then he wouldn't be responsible for the consequences. I don't blame Jordan for holding them station but it was team orders just like Austria 02 and Germany 2010 was team orders. One driver was favoured over the other at one point of the race to ensure a winning result for the no1 driver.

I've just listened again to the radio call Hill made (thanks to SchumieRules!). Where is the threat?

SchumieRules wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mds wrote:

RaisinChips wrote:

Who could forget, though I almost did, Schumacher's intentional collisions into title rivals in 1994 and 1997 and the Monaco parking incident in 2006. Big fails as those put a major dent on his reputation.

As for Schumacher, I'd also add ignoring a stop-and-go penalty, then ignoring a black flag, then getting banned for a few races.

Would you believe I actually understand what he did there much better, than what he did in the final part of the race the Hungaroring in 2006? Getting it completely wrong and going against the better judgement of the pit crews...

You mean staying on intermediates? He gambled and lost!

No, staying out on intermediates was exactly the gamble you would quite normally expect. It was staying out on intermediates longer than was useful, and destroying them that was unwise. After that, he started giving up pace in fighting every challenger in turn, and hitting those challengers - despite Brawn telling him exactly what to do and what not to do. If you want to see a major "fail", look no further.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

_________________DaymanFighter of the NightmanChampion of the sunYou’re a master of karate and friendship…for everyone!

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Yeah, there was no threat. Hill was just saying that he would fight Ralf for the win if they had to race, and in these conditions that would be suicidal.

Jordan had told Ralf that if Alesi became a serious threat then he would ask Damon to move across and let Ralf through.

But other than that there was absolutely nothing that could be gained and everything that could be lost by letting them race.

Even though Ralf had the pace, there was no guarantee he'd cleanly overtake Hill, especially in these conditions. He had a history of taking other drivers off, even in the dry.

And there were a couple of reasons for Hill's perceived lack of pace.

i) He drove the entire race on a dry setup (he had gone for this before the restart because he felt the track was drying and the weather was improving - as it happens the rain got worse.)

ii) After the race, the team discovered that, during Hill's middle stint, he had been driving with a cracked rim on his right rear wheel and that the tyre pressure was 14psi (rather than the normal 19psi). I have a vague recollection (but it is very vague) that Hill mentioned an incident while overtaking a Prost in that second stint.

Can you elaborate on my nickname? What does Hill yielding his position have to do with Michael?

Team orders. You saw a problem with Hill supposedly calling for team orders (although I think he just plain told EJ he would fight for position) when MS (your nickname) profited from blatant team orderrs multiple times.

I don't remember Schumacher, Hakkinen or many others ever calling for team orders. That's the difference

You're a fool if you believe Michael didn't demand preferential treatment, it may not have been heard, it was (as is the case with Ferrari) decided before the race - even before the seasons started. The #2 submits to the #1.

I don't get the issue with what Hill said. He was telling Eddie he wanted to win and that if he had to race Ralf, it might get messy. Most teams come across this dilemma every weekend.

Can you elaborate on my nickname? What does Hill yielding his position have to do with Michael?

Team orders. You saw a problem with Hill supposedly calling for team orders (although I think he just plain told EJ he would fight for position) when MS (your nickname) profited from blatant team orderrs multiple times.

I don't remember Schumacher, Hakkinen or many others ever calling for team orders. That's the difference

You're a fool if you believe Michael didn't demand preferential treatment, it may not have been heard, it was (as is the case with Ferrari) decided before the race - even before the seasons started. The #2 submits to the #1.

I don't get the issue with what Hill said. He was telling Eddie he wanted to win and that if he had to race Ralf, it might get messy. Most teams come across this dilemma every weekend.

Thanks Seanie, you look good too in yours.

I have no idea whether he demanded no 1 treatment or if he got it as he was faster, something that his ex team mates have confirmed. But the hell with it, I suppose you know better. Did your crystal ball say anything about Hakkinen? Did he demand orders? How about Heidfeld, or the rest of the drivers that benefited? Do you think that every team order was down to drivers demanding preferential treatment? Really?

You know what, sod it, I don't want you to reply, as said before Schumacher is evil and he called team orders, preferential treatment, contractual terms etc. Happy?

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Is that how it works?

Silly me. I thought the faster guy wins. Better tell Button to give Vettel back his win in Canada in 2011, I mean Vettel was leading the whole race, he should be staying ahead, right?

No, staying out on intermediates was exactly the gamble you would quite normally expect. It was staying out on intermediates longer than was useful, and destroying them that was unwise. After that, he started giving up pace in fighting every challenger in turn, and hitting those challengers - despite Brawn telling him exactly what to do and what not to do. If you want to see a major "fail", look no further.

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Well, I never heard MS say it, but I heard todt say it. And besides, Ferrari isn't Jordan, a team on the verge of their 1st win.

Can't have one rule for one and not the others. Hill's last win was a result of team orders, Ralf was faster but Hill threatened Jordan to hold him off. Simple as that.

You can't say 'as simple as that' about a prediction. Hill could have been holding something in reserve, Ralf could have gone off trying to make the move, they could have lost so much time tangling that neither of them won. Hill may have won partly as a result of team orders (he did a little more in that race than make a radio call), or he may have won regardless.

And do we actually know what Hill said? (Honest question, I don't know if there's a radio clip.)

The times suggested Ralf was able to go much quicker at that point of the race. If he had been allowed to attack Hill then he probably would have passed him but Hill told Jordan if that happened then he wouldn't be responsible for the consequences. I don't blame Jordan for holding them station but it was team orders just like Austria 02 and Germany 2010 was team orders. One driver was favoured over the other at one point of the race to ensure a winning result for the no1 driver.

I agree Ralf was likely quicker, but in those conditions it's about staying as far from the edge as you can. Ralf was less experienced and hunting down first place, two reasons why he may have been pushing harder than Hill wanted to, or was prepared to. And even if he were quicker he would still have had to get past.

To me there's no question that what happened was the right call, and that it was also the 'normal' call to make. The most surprising thing seeing it again all this time later is how and why it was left up to Hill to point out the obvious (and how calmly he does it). I'd actually forgotten about the conditions, which were another reason why it would have been madness to let them race. Jordan had nothing to gain and sooooo much to lose.

I've felt uncomfortable about some team orders instances (legal or not), but the practicality and circumstances of this example makes it completely acceptable to me. I appreciate it's not a strong argument, but I don't find an order not to attack as bad as an order to move over. Remember most teams operated a system where the final fuel stop marked the point at which you could no longer challenge your team mate. So this sort of thing has probably happened dozens of times, just not so publicly.

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

What happened at Monaco '05...?

Kimi won from pole, so I don't know what AndyPerry means.

monaco 06 was the one probably meant

I thought this was a reference to the Schumi/Barrichello squabble on the last lap of Monaco 05?

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

Well, I never heard MS say it, but I heard todt say it. And besides, Ferrari isn't Jordan, a team on the verge of their 1st win.

Can't have one rule for one and not the others. Hill's last win was a result of team orders, Ralf was faster but Hill threatened Jordan to hold him off. Simple as that.

You can't say 'as simple as that' about a prediction. Hill could have been holding something in reserve, Ralf could have gone off trying to make the move, they could have lost so much time tangling that neither of them won. Hill may have won partly as a result of team orders (he did a little more in that race than make a radio call), or he may have won regardless.

And do we actually know what Hill said? (Honest question, I don't know if there's a radio clip.)

The times suggested Ralf was able to go much quicker at that point of the race. If he had been allowed to attack Hill then he probably would have passed him but Hill told Jordan if that happened then he wouldn't be responsible for the consequences. I don't blame Jordan for holding them station but it was team orders just like Austria 02 and Germany 2010 was team orders. One driver was favoured over the other at one point of the race to ensure a winning result for the no1 driver.

I agree Ralf was likely quicker, but in those conditions it's about staying as far from the edge as you can. Ralf was less experienced and hunting down first place, two reasons why he may have been pushing harder than Hill wanted to, or was prepared to. And even if he were quicker he would still have had to get past.

To me there's no question that what happened was the right call, and that it was also the 'normal' call to make. The most surprising thing seeing it again all this time later is how and why it was left up to Hill to point out the obvious (and how calmly he does it). I'd actually forgotten about the conditions, which were another reason why it would have been madness to let them race. Jordan had nothing to gain and sooooo much to lose.

I've felt uncomfortable about some team orders instances (legal or not), but the practicality and circumstances of this example makes it completely acceptable to me. I appreciate it's not a strong argument, but I don't find an order not to attack as bad as an order to move over. Remember most teams operated a system where the final fuel stop marked the point at which you could no longer challenge your team mate. So this sort of thing has probably happened dozens of times, just not so publicly.

In this case, in these conditions, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Damon told Eddie that he would fight for the win regardless of the consequences. It wasn't a response to Eddie's instruction to let Ralf past. If that were the case, than I'd agree to call it a threat. But it wasn't.

And besides, the guy who was ahead and faster for the majority of the race got to stay ahead. Nothing like Zeltweg '02 or Monaco '05.

What happened at Monaco '05...?

Kimi won from pole, so I don't know what AndyPerry means.

monaco 06 was the one probably meant

Maybe he meant Monaco 07 when Fonzo and Lewis were 1st and 2nd?

No, he meant Monaco 2005, when Schumacher made Barrichello avoid an accident when he wanted to take Rubens's 7th place (and squeezed his brother in an effort to take 6th). Which effectively meant that at Ferrari there is one set of rules for all drivers... except the appointed number 1. "After the final pitstops, you don't attack your teammate, except if..."

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

No, he meant Monaco 2005, when Schumacher made Barrichello avoid an accident when he wanted to take Rubens's 7th place (and squeezed his brother in an effort to take 6th). Which effectively meant that at Ferrari there is one set of rules for all drivers... except the appointed number 1. "After the final pitstops, you don't attack your teammate, except if..."

Rubens was caught napping and got overtaken in the chicane. Then threw the toys out of the pram.